Last Monday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced plans to reduce the active-duty Army from its current strength of 522,000 soldiers to between 444,000 and 450,000 – the smallest in 74 years. As America moves beyond the costly and controversial post-9/11 wars in  Afghanistan and Iraq, Hagel’s rationale for “shrinking the Army ... and reshaping forces to confront a more volatile, more unpredictable world with a more nimble military,” makes sense. However, that doesn’t mean it’s politically doable.
Predictably, the reaction from two Republicans in Congress to Hagel’s proposal to cut the Army was swift and negative. “I am concerned that we are on a path to repeat the mistakes we’ve made during past attempts to cash in on expected peace dividends that never materialized,” asserted Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.
“What we’re trying to do is solve our financial problems on the backs of our military, and that can’t be done,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon of California.
These opening salvos from Rubio and McKeon are among the first in what promises to be heavy bombardment from both parties in the Senate and House – especially those with an Army presence to protect in their respective constituencies. Their indignation transcends political ideology and party boundaries when it comes to “bringing home the bacon” to the folks back home and “bringing in the bucks” from pro-defense interest groups and lobbyists from around our nation.
Still, there is a cogent case to be made for reasonable reductions in the Army, without hampering combat readiness. For example, strategists for a more agile Army should consider cutting high-level commands that are outdated or redundant in the 21st Century. Currently, there are nine so-called “U.S. Unified Combatant Commands” worldwide. Each has its own four-star general or Navy admiral, a huge military and civilian staff, with money and resources to match. Do we really need nine of these bureaucratic behemoths? I doubt it.
An agile Army could also use fewer generals. Fourteen four-star generals seems a tad top-heavy to me; so does the crop of three-, two-, and one-star generals. The same goes for Army colonels. Every position that now calls for a colonel should be examined with a keen eye to see if it could be filled just as well, or better, by a lieutenant colonel. Moreover, no colonel should have to work directly for another colonel. That is rank redundancy run rampant.
In short, as the Army is giving thousands of lower-ranking officers and enlisted soldiers the boot, generals and colonels need to bear their share of the burden, too.
Retired Army Col. Thomas B. Vaughn can be reached at tbvbwmi@blomand.net.